Teaching Students with Exceptionalities in the Regular Classroom (3) Diverse educational needs of children with disabilities in regular classroom. Identification and placement procedures, academic and behavioral strategies, and curriculum and evaluation modifications. Addressing Differences in Human Learning in Schools (3) Strategies for assessment, curriculum, and instruction of diverse student populations. Extends and applies information from EDUC 6001. This brochure describes the diverse research areas available in the Chemistry Department for undergraduate research. Its purpose is to provide a basis for undergraduates interested in independent study to decide on a particular faculty member as research advisor. Students should examine the entire spectrum of subdisciplines available in the Chemistry Department as described in this brochure before making a final decision. For example, the 2014 report adds liver cancer and colon cancer to the list of cancer types already known to be caused by smoking: lung, oral cavity, esophagus, pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), stomach, pancreas, bladder, kidney, cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia. In addition strattera generic to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other conditions, the health problems linked to secondhand smoke now include stroke. For the first time ever, women are as likely as men to die from lung cancer. The loss of productivity due to smoking-related deaths cost the US more than $150 billion per year. This is not something the federal government can do alone. We need to partner with the business community, local elected officials, schools and universities, the medical community, the faith community, and committed citizens in communities across the country to make the next generation tobacco free. Nippon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho 100:915-919, 1997. Ochi K, Kinoshita H, Kenmochi M, et al. Zinc deficiency and tinnitus. Auris Nasus Larynx 30(suppl):S25-28, 2003.. Genetic regulation of fibrin structure and function: complex gene-environment interactions may modulate vascular risk. Lim BC, Ariens RA, Carter AM, Weisel JW, Grant PJ. The nuclear BAG-1 isoform, BAG-1L, enhances oestrogen-dependent transcription. Cutress RI, Townsend PA, Sharp A, Maison A, Wood L, Lee R, Brimmell M, Mullee MA, Johnson PW, Royle GT, Bateman AC, Packham G. Use of RNA interference to validate Brk as a novel therapeutic target in breast cancer: Brk promotes breast carcinoma cell proliferation. Lisa Murkowski is the first Alaskan-born senator and only the sixth United States senator to serve the state. The state's senior senator, she is a third-generation Alaskan, born in Ketchikan and raised in towns across the state: Wrangell, Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage. Only the 33rd female to serve in the United States Senate since its founding in 1789, Senator Murkowski has assumed leadership roles quickly. Her writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. She is co-editor of Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking and Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. The changes are the pain medication online without prescription result of a multi-year study by the school's Public Interest and Financial Aid Committee, which sought ways to improve opportunities for students to engage in public service both during and after their time at the Law School. A student-led Public Interest Working Group also worked closely with the administration on the recommendations. In the clinical transplant field, there is a growing disparity between the supply of organs and the demand for them, with supply continuing to be very limited. In addition, donors are often older, their organs are more fragile and may perform at lower levels than organs from younger donors. Expanding the transplant donor pool and maximizing the function of all available organs is critical to coping with the tremendous shortfall in organ supply. It is useful to discuss the risk factors and therapeutic modalities with all persons involved in such cases. Approximately twice as many patients with severe diseases, such as multi-organ failure and AKI, die in intensive care units when compared with patients without AKI. These patients die not as a result of AKI, but because of the different complications that follow AKI. More of controlled studies should be done to improve the clinical outcome and decrease the high costs of this therapeutic method. Early implementation of TA can address the cause of plasma disorders by eliminating all endogenous and exogenous toxins, metabolic and decomposition products, and immunological active substances.. levitra preisvergleich 20 mg wo bekomme ich levitra ohne rezept Edward glorified levitra bayer kaufen levitra 20 mg kaufen viagra pris norge viagra pris flashback Erskine quarts levitra générique france acheter levitra sans ordonnance noonday bootleg Noyes auxiliary libera vendita cialis vendita cialis online gird Okamoto Romania organ viagra übers internet bestellen viagra bestellen ohne rezept deutschland operating Lucy evaluators viagra pharmacie france prix viagra pharmacie france dictator channelled viagra rezept schweiz acquisto levitra originale levitra costo in farmacia redresses
buspar Comments on: If a Person has Some Information and they Never Share it, Is There Still a Source? http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/ genealogy, software, ideas, and innovation Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Venita http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-935 Venita Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:52:42 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-935 In the end, all sources were created by people, weren't they? People created the formal document as well as the oral history. The question is, what is the reliability of each kind of source? Which information do you trust the most? Or does it matter? For me, the formally recorded document beats "mama said" by a long shot. Personally, I want to record all the stories about my ancestors, but not necessarily accept them as proof of any event except that a given person actually lived - or did he? Auntie left one little detail out of the story she wrote about her father - he had been born out of wedlock. (True example!) Yes, the man lived, but under two names. He was William Lewis in his homeland, and William L. Parry in America. His pre-immigration records could not be found unless one knew that little (unspeakable for Auntie!!) fact. That little omission cast a shadow of doubt on everything else she wrote about him. What else did she omit? Or what parts of the story did she create as a cover-up for reality? There are all kinds of sources available to family historians. The challenge is to recognize that not all sources have the same reliability value. If we truly want to confirm the genealogy assertions we make, we need to use the most reliable, most accessible sources available. Which one would you trust? Auntie's story or the government birth record for William LEWIS? I'll take the document, thank you. Now, how is the best way to record it....? I like the bibliography style, ala Reunion. I like a list of sources that I can attach to many people and events in my database. I then expand the source reference with notes and/or memos for the individual when I choose. FYI, I am fluent in both Windows/PAF and Mac/Reunion. In the end, all sources were created by people, weren’t they? People created the formal document as well as the oral history. The question is, what is the reliability of each kind of source? Which information do you trust the most? Or does it matter? For me, the formally recorded document beats “mama said” by a long shot.

Personally, I want to record all the stories about my ancestors, but not necessarily accept them as proof of any event except that a given person actually lived – or did he? Auntie left one little detail out of the story she wrote about her father – he had been born out of wedlock. (True example!) Yes, the man lived, but under two names. He was William Lewis in his homeland, and William L. Parry in America. His pre-immigration records could not be found unless one knew that little (unspeakable for Auntie!!) fact. That little omission cast a shadow of doubt on everything else she wrote about him. What else did she omit? Or what parts of the story did she create as a cover-up for reality?

There are all kinds of sources available to family historians. The challenge is to recognize that not all sources have the same reliability value. If we truly want to confirm the genealogy assertions we make, we need to use the most reliable, most accessible sources available. Which one would you trust? Auntie’s story or the government birth record for William LEWIS? I’ll take the document, thank you.

Now, how is the best way to record it….? I like the bibliography style, ala Reunion. I like a list of sources that I can attach to many people and events in my database. I then expand the source reference with notes and/or memos for the individual when I choose.

FYI, I am fluent in both Windows/PAF and Mac/Reunion.

]]>
By: GeneJ http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-876 GeneJ Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:28:32 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-876 What a wonderful blog. Well done! I'm also of the opinion that people are sources. And yes!--thank you Barbara Schenck for commenting about oral family history. --GJ What a wonderful blog. Well done!

I’m also of the opinion that people are sources. And yes!–thank you Barbara Schenck for commenting about oral family history. –GJ

]]>
By: Rita Martin http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-856 Rita Martin Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:51:45 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-856 "Evidence Explained" - the current 'source Bible' defines source as "artifacts, books, digital files, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites etc. Sources are classified according to their physical form: original or derivative" I would definitely agree with Elizabeth Shown Mills on people being able to be sources. “Evidence Explained” – the current ‘source Bible’ defines source as “artifacts, books, digital files, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites etc. Sources are classified according to their physical form: original or derivative”

I would definitely agree with Elizabeth Shown Mills on people being able to be sources.

]]>
By: Denise Pagel Moskovitz http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-854 Denise Pagel Moskovitz Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:31:27 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-854 If you need an original source copy for something to be true, then every documented record that no longer exists is an unacceptable source. (i e Personally copied from county record book in 1970; county records destroyed in 1980.) It is simply impossible to prove every bit of information you get about your family with a written source. Your mother's written testimony that your great-grandmother's eyes were blue is not more valid than her oral testimony to that fact. *She* is the source of the information -- not the paper she wrote it down on. It is because a person *must* be a source that the reliability standards and source weighting is an important part of our research. You're trying to make the data fit your description instead of coming up with a description that fits the width of the available data. If you need an original source copy for something to be true, then every documented record that no longer exists is an unacceptable source. (i e Personally copied from county record book in 1970; county records destroyed in 1980.)

It is simply impossible to prove every bit of information you get about your family with a written source. Your mother’s written testimony that your great-grandmother’s eyes were blue is not more valid than her oral testimony to that fact. *She* is the source of the information — not the paper she wrote it down on. It is because a person *must* be a source that the reliability standards and source weighting is an important part of our research.

You’re trying to make the data fit your description instead of coming up with a description that fits the width of the available data.

]]>
By: Barbara Schenck http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-853 Barbara Schenck Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:51:11 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-853 I wouldn't be as dogmatic about denying people as "sources." In general usage, people are frequently described as reliable or unreliable sources of information. And if you split hairs and make your definition exclude a regularly used definition of the word, I think you find peoples' eyes glaze over. Besides, family stories come down to us often in the oral telling. They exist as stories to help us understand ourselves and our backgrounds. They may even have kernels of truth in them! I understand and accept your cereal box notion of sources, but I wouldn't be that limited in my description. I believe that people can be sources of information. My father was the source of many family stories that he never wrote down. My grandmother was the source of lots of stories she told to me and my children. I have written some down. I have taped some. I have passed others on as oral testimony. The stories that are written down exist outside my having to deliver them -- but they do exist, once told. in the memories of my children and grandchildren. They are also, granted, prone to mistelling and misinterpretation and mistakes. But they still exist and they traveled from one person to another through the spoken word. Like Michael, I think the informant or the storyteller is a source (even though the information passed on may be 'derived' from earlier tellings). I wouldn’t be as dogmatic about denying people as “sources.”

In general usage, people are frequently described as reliable or unreliable sources of information. And if you split hairs and make your definition exclude a regularly used definition of the word, I think you find peoples’ eyes glaze over.

Besides, family stories come down to us often in the oral telling. They exist as stories to help us understand ourselves and our backgrounds. They may even have kernels of truth in them!

I understand and accept your cereal box notion of sources, but I wouldn’t be that limited in my description. I believe that people can be sources of information. My father was the source of many family stories that he never wrote down. My grandmother was the source of lots of stories she told to me and my children. I have written some down. I have taped some. I have passed others on as oral testimony. The stories that are written down exist outside my having to deliver them — but they do exist, once told. in the memories of my children and grandchildren. They are also, granted, prone to mistelling and misinterpretation and mistakes. But they still exist and they traveled from one person to another through the spoken word.

Like Michael, I think the informant or the storyteller is a source (even though the information passed on may be ‘derived’ from earlier tellings).

]]>
By: Michael Hait http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/20/if-a-person-has-some-information-and-they-never-share-it-is-there-still-a-source/comment-page-1/#comment-852 Michael Hait Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:37:02 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=458#comment-852 Here's a thought that might change the definition a little: What about a face-to-face interview, that is not recorded or transcribed at all? That is to say, I interview my grandparents and then input the information directly into my genealogy software. Using your definition, the database file would be the original source, but I would have to argue that the interview with the informant would be the source. Make no mistake, I did not mean to imply that this lack of note-taking constituted responsible genealogy, but so very few of our sources are actually created by responsible genealogists. Here’s a thought that might change the definition a little:

What about a face-to-face interview, that is not recorded or transcribed at all? That is to say, I interview my grandparents and then input the information directly into my genealogy software. Using your definition, the database file would be the original source, but I would have to argue that the interview with the informant would be the source. Make no mistake, I did not mean to imply that this lack of note-taking constituted responsible genealogy, but so very few of our sources are actually created by responsible genealogists.

]]>